EN BANC

[A.C. No. 10537. February 3, 2015.]

REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. MERCEDES

BUHAYANG-MARGALLO, respondent.

RESOLUTION

LEONEN, J : p

When an action or proceeding is initiated in our courts, lawyers become

the eyes and ears of their clients. Lawyers are expected to prosecute or defend
the interests of their clients without need for reminders. The privilege of the
office of attorney grants them the ability to warrant to their client that they will
manage the case as if it were their own. The relationship between an attorney
and client is a sacred agency. It cannot be disregarded on the flimsy excuse
that the lawyer accepted the case only because he or she was asked by an
acquaintance. The professional relationship remains the same regardless of the
reasons for the acceptance by counsel and regardless of whether the case is
highly paying or pro bono.

Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo's (Atty. Margallo) inaction resulted in a

lost appeal, terminating the case of her client not on the merits but due to her
negligence. She made it appear that the case was dismissed on the merits
when, in truth, she failed to file the Appellant's Brief on time. She did not
discharge her duties of candor to her client.
This court resolves the Petition for Review 1 filed by Atty. Margallo under
Rule 139-B, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolution of the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
In the Resolution 2 dated March 21, 2014, the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines affirmed with modification its earlier
Resolution 3 dated March 20, 2013. In its delegated capacity to conduct fact
finding for this court, it found that respondent Atty. Margallo had violated
Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. 4 Consequently, the Board of Governors recommended that Atty.
Margallo be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. 5
In the Complaint 6 filed on January 20, 2010 before the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant Reynaldo
Raudrez (Ramirez) alleged that he engaged Atty. Margallo's services as legal
counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title entitled "Spouses Roque v. Ramirez."
7 The case was initiated before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal,
Branch 68. 8
According to Ramirez, Atty. Margallo contacted him on or about March
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2004, as per a referral from a friend of Ramirez's sister. 9 He alleged that Atty.
Margallo had offered her legal services on the condition that she be given 30%
of the land subject of the controversy instead of attorney's fees. 10 It was also
agreed upon that Ramirez would pay Atty. Margallo P1,000.00 per court
appearance. 11 aEcTDI

On October 19, 2006, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision

adverse to Ramirez. 12 Atty. Margallo advised him to appeal the judgment. She
committed to file the Appeal before the Court of Appeals. 13
The Appeal was perfected and the records were sent to the Court of
Appeals sometime in 2008. 14 On December 5, 2008, the Court of Appeals
directed Ramirez to file his Appellant's Brief. Ramirez notified Atty. Margallo,
who replied that she would have one prepared. 15

On January 8, 2009, Ramirez contacted Atty. Margallo to follow up on the

Appellant's Brief. Atty. Margallo informed him that he needed to meet her to
sign the documents necessary for the brief. 16
On several occasions, Ramirez followed up on the status of the brief, but
he was told that there was still no word from the Court of Appeals. 17
On August 26, 2009, Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that his Appeal had
been denied. 18 She told him that the Court of Appeals' denial was due to
Ramirez's failure to establish his filiation with his alleged father, which was the
basis of his claim. 19 She also informed him that they could no longer appeal to
this court since the Decision of the Court of Appeals had been promulgated and
the reglementary period for filing an Appeal had already lapsed. 20
Ramirez went to the Court of Appeals. There, he discovered that the
Appellant's Brief was filed on April 13, 2009 with a Motion for Reconsideration
and Apologies for filing beyond the reglementary period. 21
Ramirez alleged that Atty. Margallo had violated Canon 17 and Canon 18,
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 22 By way of
defense, Atty. Margallo argued that she had agreed to take on the case for free,
save for travel expense of P1,000.00 per hearing. She also claimed that she
had candidly informed Ramirez and his mother that they only had a 50%
chance of winning the case. 23 She denied ever having entered into an
agreement regarding the contingent fee worth 30% of the value of the land
subject of the controversy.
Atty. Margallo asserted that she would not have taken on the Appeal
except that the mother of Ramirez had begged her to do so. 24 She claimed
that when she instructed Ramirez to see her for document signing on January 8,
2009, he ignored her. When he finally showed up on March 2009, he merely
told her that he had been busy. 25 Her failure to immediately inform Ramirez of
the unfavorable Decision of the Court of Appeals was due to losing her client's
number because her 8-year-old daughter played with her phone and
accidentally erased all her contacts. 26
Mandatory conference and findings
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
The dispute was set for mandatory conference on June 3, 2010. 27 Only
Ramirez appeared despite Atty. Margallo having received notice. 28 The
mandatory conference was reset to July 22, 2010. Both parties then appeared
and were directed to submit their position papers. 29
Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva recommended that Atty. Margallo
be reprimanded for her actions and be given a stern warning that her next
infraction of a similar nature shall be dealt with more severely. 30 This was
based on his two key findings. First, Atty. Margallo allowed the reglementary
period for filing an Appellant's Brief to lapse by assuming that Ramirez no
longer wanted to pursue the case instead of exhausting all means possible to
protect the interest of her client. 31 Second, Atty. Margallo had been remiss in
her duties as counsel, resulting in the loss of Ramirez's statutory right to seek
recourse with the Court of Appeals. 32

In the Resolution 33 dated March 20, 2013, the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved the recommendation of
the Commission on Bar Discipline. The Board of Governors resolved to
recommend a penalty of reprimand to Atty. Margallo with a stern warning that
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.SCIacA

Ramirez seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 16, 2013. 34

In the Resolution dated March 21, 2014, the Board of Governors granted
Ramirez's Motion for Reconsideration and increased the recommended penalty
to suspension from practice of law for two (2) years. 35
On August 20, 2014, Atty. Margallo filed a Petition for Review under Rule
139-B, Section 12 of the Rules of Court. 36 She alleged that the recommended
penalty of suspension was too severe considering that she had been very
careful and vigilant in defending the cause of her client. She also averred that
this was the first time a Complaint was filed against her. 37

Ramirez thereafter filed an undated Motion to adopt his Motion for

Reconsideration previously filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline as a
Comment on Atty. Margallo's Petition for Review. 38 In the Resolution 39 dated
October 14, 2014, this court granted Ramirez's Motion. Atty. Margallo filed her
Reply 40 on October 6, 2014.

This court's ruling

The Petition is denied for lack of merit.

The relationship between a lawyer and a client is "imbued with utmost

trust and confidence". 41 Lawyers are expected to exercise the necessary
diligence and competence in managing cases entrusted to them. They commit
not only to review cases or give legal advice, but also to represent their clients
to the best of their ability without need to be reminded by either the client or
the court. The expectation to maintain a high degree of legal proficiency and
attention remains the same whether the represented party is a high-paying
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 client or an indigent litigant. 42

Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility clearly provide:
CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render him
liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of
his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to client's
request for information.

I n Caranza Vda. De Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr. , 43 a lawyer was suspended

after failing to justify his absence in a scheduled preliminary conference, which
resulted in the case being submitted for resolution. This was aggravated by the
lawyer's failure to inform his client about the adverse ruling of the Court of
Appeals, thereby precluding the litigant from further pursuing an Appeal. This
court found that these actions amounted to gross negligence tantamount to
breaching Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
The relationship between an attorney and his client is one
imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light, clients are led to
expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and
accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high
standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he
accepts it for a fee or for free.
xxx xxx xxx

Case law further illumines that a lawyer's duty of competence

and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the
counsel's care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of
properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending
scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch,
and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court
to prod him or her to do so. CAIaHS

Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects

him to disciplinary action. While such negligence or carelessness is
incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the
lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se
a violation. 44 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Respondent Atty. Margallo was unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal
counsel to Ramirez.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty.
Margallo and her client was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of
her client. This cost complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no
appellate remedies. His legal cause was orphaned not because a court of law
ruled on the merits of his case, but because a person privileged to act as
counsel failed to discharge her duties with the requisite diligence. Her
assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested to pursue the
Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no proof that she exerted efforts to
communicate with her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her
obligation as counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo
failed to exhaust all possible means to protect complainant Ramirez's interest,
which is contrary to what she had sworn to do as a member of the legal
profession. For these reasons, she clearly violated Canon 17 and Canon 18,
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A problem arises whenever agents, entrusted to manage the interests of

another, use their authority or power for their benefit or fail to discharge their
duties. In many agencies, there is information asymmetry between the
principal and the entrusted agent. That is, there are facts and events that the
agent must attend to that may not be known by the principal.

This information asymmetry is even more pronounced in an attorney-

client relationship. Lawyers are expected not only to be familiar with the minute
facts of their cases but also to see their relevance in relation to their causes of
action or their defenses. The salience of these facts is not usually patent to the
client. It can only be seen through familiarity with the relevant legal provisions
that are invoked with their jurisprudential interpretations. More so with the
intricacies of the legal procedure. It is the lawyer that receives the notices and
must decide the mode of appeal to protect the interest of his or her client.

Thus, the relationship between a lawyer and her client is regarded as

highly fiduciary. Between the lawyer and the client, it is the lawyer that has the
better knowledge of facts, events, and remedies. While it is true that the client
chooses which lawyer to engage, he or she usually does so on the basis of
reputation. It is only upon actual engagement that the client discovers the level
of diligence, competence, and accountability of the counsel that he or she
chooses. In some cases, such as this one, the discovery comes too late.
Between the lawyer and the client, therefore, it is the lawyer that should bear
the full costs of indifference or negligence.

Respondent Atty. Margallo's position that a two-year suspension is too

severe considering that it is her first infraction cannot be sustained. In Caranza
Vda. De Saldivar, we observed:
As regards the appropriate penalty, several cases show that
lawyers who have been held liable for gross negligence for infractions
similar to those of the respondent were suspended for a period of six
(6) months. In Aranda v. Elayda , a lawyer who failed to appear at the
scheduled hearing despite due notice which resulted in the submission
of the case for decision was found guilty of gross negligence and
hence, suspended for six (6) months. In Heirs of Tiburcio F. Ballesteros,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Sr. v. Apiag , a lawyer who did not file a pre-trial brief and was absent
during the pre-trial conference was likewise suspended for six (6)
months. In Abiero v. Juanino , a lawyer who neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him by his client in breach of Canons 17 and 18 of the
Code was also suspended for six (6) months. Thus, consistent with
existing jurisprudence, the Court finds it proper to impose the
same penalty against respondent and accordingly suspends
him for a period of six (6) months. 45 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)

Caranza Vda. De Saldivar did not leave the clients without procedural
remedies. On the other hand, respondent Atty. Margallo's neglect resulted in
her client having no further recourse in court to protect his legal interests. This
lack of diligence, to the utmost prejudice of complainant Ramirez who relied on
her alleged competence as counsel, must not be tolerated. It is time that we
communicate that lawyers must actively manage cases entrusted to them.
There should be no more room for an inertia of mediocrity. IaSAHC

Parenthetically, it is this court that has the constitutionally mandated duty

to discipline lawyers. 46 Under the current rules, the duty to assist fact finding
can be delegated to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The findings of the
Integrated Bar, however, can only be recommendatory, consistent with the
constitutional powers of this court. Its recommended penalties are also, by its
nature, recommendatory. Despite the precedents, it is the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines that recognizes that the severity of the infraction is worth a penalty
of two-year suspension. We read this as a showing of its desire to increase the
level of professionalism of our lawyers.
This court is not without jurisdiction to increase the penalties imposed in
order to address a current need in the legal profession. The desire of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines to ensure a higher ethical standard for its
members' conduct is laudable. The negligence of respondent Atty. Margallo
coupled with her lack of candor is reprehensible.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Recommendations
and Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines dated March 21, 2014 is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED.
Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. This decision is
immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin,
Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and
Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., is on leave.

Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 * On leave.

* Proofreading refers to modifications of the circulated opinion to correct

grammatical errors, citations, and format of footnotes. It can include minor
revisions affecting style and language to improve readability. I reserve the
option to include arguments orally made during the deliberations. n
1. Rollo , pp. 319-357.
2. Id. at 310.
3. Id. at 311.

4. Id. at 312.
5. Id. at 310.
6. Id. at 2-5.
7. Id. at 312.
8. Id.

9. Id. at 3.
10. Id. at 313.
11. Id.
12. Id.

13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.

18. Id.
19. Id. at 314.
20. Id. at 313.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 312.

23. Id. at 314.

24. Id.
25. Id. at 315.
26. Id.

27. Id. at 316.

28. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 29. Id.
30. Id. at 318.

31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 311.
34. Id. at 296-298.
35. Id. at 310.

36. Id. at 319.

37. Id. at 326-327.
38. Id. at 545.
39. Id. at 549.

40. Id. at 551.

41. Caranza Vda. de Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013, 700 SCRA
734, 741 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

42. Id.
43. A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013, 700 SCRA 734 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second
Division].
44. Id. at 741-742.
45. Id. at 744.
46. See CONST. (1987), art. VIII, sec. 11.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com